I didn't pick his lenses. He picked his own, to advertise what he fits in a "small waist" belt. I picked mine, for focal lengths, I would normally carry which generally is about small, fast primes. If you want to take up the challenge, what kind of weight and size are you looking at with lenses to match the FoV I mentioned with a FF body?

Who cares about weight? I thought we were originally talking about image versatility?

I didn't pick his lenses. He picked his own, to advertise what he fits in a "small waist" belt. I picked mine, for focal lengths, I would normally carry which generally is about small, fast primes. If you want to take up the challenge, what kind of weight and size are you looking at with lenses to match the FoV I mentioned with a FF body?

You commented on the weight of his kit and compared it to the weight of yours. To me, that gave the impression that you saw the two kits as somehow comparable.

You have a field of view of 15-75mm full frame equivalent. If I had to match your focal length range, I'd get a 16-35/4 VR and a 24-85/3.5-4.5 VR lens which tip the scales at a combined 2.5 lbs. As it stands, the widest lens I own is a 24-120/4 VR that I rarely shoot at 24mm. Maybe someday when other things aren't screaming for my money I'll pick up an ultrawide. They seem like fun at times.

FWIW, if I wanted to travel really light and had a D800 (I don't), I could probably get by with just the 16-35/4 VR at 1.5 lbs. and crop to get to 70mm equivalent (leaving me with 9MP images).

I like this game.

By my reckoning that puts you at 1578g - 900 for the d800 and 678 for the lens.

I didn't pick his lenses. He picked his own, to advertise what he fits in a "small waist" belt. I picked mine, for focal lengths, I would normally carry which generally is about small, fast primes. If you want to take up the challenge, what kind of weight and size are you looking at with lenses to match the FoV I mentioned with a FF body?

You commented on the weight of his kit and compared it to the weight of yours. To me, that gave the impression that you saw the two kits as somehow comparable.

You have a field of view of 15-75mm full frame equivalent. If I had to match your focal length range, I'd get a 16-35/4 VR and a 24-85/3.5-4.5 VR lens which tip the scales at a combined 2.5 lbs. As it stands, the widest lens I own is a 24-120/4 VR that I rarely shoot at 24mm. Maybe someday when other things aren't screaming for my money I'll pick up an ultrawide. They seem like fun at times.

FWIW, if I wanted to travel really light and had a D800 (I don't), I could probably get by with just the 16-35/4 VR at 1.5 lbs. and crop to get to 70mm equivalent (leaving me with 9MP images).

I like this game.

By my reckoning that puts you at 1578g - 900 for the d800 and 678 for the lens.

The constant arguing of valid points only proves that all current formats have their place in the world.

If they lose their place, they go away. (People don't buy them).

I will say again if by versatile you mean these dictionary definitions,

.competently1. Capable of doing many things 2. Having varied uses or serving many functions. AND is:competentlyIf your definition of If any of these considerations have to be factored in, then you can comprimise your way down to your iPhone being the more versatile. Size, weight and cost not being factored, a pro-bodied DSLR, with an arsenal of lenses, is the most versatile camera in the world. Then you realize that this entire question is impossible to answer. 2. Adequate for the purpose. 1. Properly or sufficiently qualified.

I am not sure why my formatting went crazy, but this is what I typed. I am on an old version of IE and cannot edit.

The constant arguing of valid points only proves that all current formats have their place in the world.

If they lose their place, they go away. (People don't buy them).

I will say again if by versatile you mean these dictionary definitions,

1. Capable of doing many things

2. Having varied uses or serving many functions.

AND

If your definition of competently is,

1. Adequate for the purpose.

2. Properly or sufficiently qualified.

Then you realize that this entire question is impossible to answer, even the definitions are subjective.

Size, weight and cost not being factored, a pro-bodied DSLR, with an arsenal of lenses, is the most versatile camera in the world.

If any of these considerations have to be factored in, then you can compromise your way down to your iPhone being the more versatile.

I didn't pick his lenses. He picked his own, to advertise what he fits in a "small waist" belt. I picked mine, for focal lengths, I would normally carry which generally is about small, fast primes. If you want to take up the challenge, what kind of weight and size are you looking at with lenses to match the FoV I mentioned with a FF body?

You commented on the weight of his kit and compared it to the weight of yours. To me, that gave the impression that you saw the two kits as somehow comparable.

I commented on this argument:

ljfinger wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

ljfinger wrote:

Ulric wrote:

And the Canon FF primes or zooms will easily fit into the fridge you brought to the picnic.

People that claim there is a meaningful difference in physical size are kidding themselves, in my opinion. I use a small waist pack and carry a full-frame camera with four lenses two teleconverters and a full-sized flash plus accessories like batteries, filters, cards, micro tripods, and even a water bottle, site map and snacks.

The person you responded to is definitely exaggerating, but so are you. How much space and weight do you think a FF camera, with an ultra wide zoom, a wide angle prime (20-30mm), a normal fast prime (50mm) and a short fast telephoto (85mm) cost?

Not much...like I said, I use a small waist pack, and that includes a 70-200/2.8, a 24-105, a 15mm fisheye and a 35/1.4.

You have a field of view of 15-75mm full frame equivalent. If I had to match your focal length range, I'd get a 16-35/4 VR and a 24-85/3.5-4.5 VR lens which tip the scales at a combined 2.5 lbs.

You might want to also note that I didn't stop with couple of zooms to cover a FL range. So, let me ask again,

How much space and weight are we talking about, carrying an ultra-wide zoom, a wide angle prime (pick 20-35mm), a normal prime (50mm) and a 75-90mm short telephoto prime? With NEX-6, you're looking at about 2 lb, or the weight of a typical Full Frame body-only.

As it stands, the widest lens I own is a 24-120/4 VR that I rarely shoot at 24mm. Maybe someday when other things aren't screaming for my money I'll pick up an ultrawide. They seem like fun at times.

I didn't pick his lenses. He picked his own, to advertise what he fits in a "small waist" belt. I picked mine, for focal lengths, I would normally carry which generally is about small, fast primes. If you want to take up the challenge, what kind of weight and size are you looking at with lenses to match the FoV I mentioned with a FF body?

Who cares about weight? I thought we were originally talking about image versatility?

Versatility of anything isn't about considering a select piece of the entire makeup. It is something's ability to adapt easily to several different situations.

It can do pretty much anything a comparable DSLR/DSLT can. However, it will be a tall order to reverse that.

It cannot shoot BIF or sports very well.

Well, if you cannot, but I can, then it isn't the tool that is the problem. Although, I don't shoot BIF and Sports regularly. But I know, anytime I want to, I can as these test shots should tell you, and those are with the most basic and the very first of NEX-series (NEX-3):

Auto Focus

Manual Focus

No long zooms available.

Non-issue to me. It is extremely rare for me to feel the need for anything past 135mm (200mm equivalent). In some of these cases above, are the few moments I go to 200mm or better.

Of course, a superzoom like FZ-200 or Sx50 could do it all too. Could do more.

Let me see it.

Sony lenses for the NEx cannot do what DSLR lenses can in that department. Samsung and m43s have better IQ in general, a lot better and m43s has a much longer focal length. But even these are not where DSLR systems are yet.

Sony NEX can do more than a comparable DSLR can. To repeat, I can if I were to carry just one camera today, for its versatility, Sony NEX-6 would be my pick. Not any comparable DSLR, not any DSLT. And forget m4/3 and lesser cameras.

The constant arguing of valid points only proves that all current formats have their place in the world.

If they lose their place, they go away. (People don't buy them).

I will say again if by versatile you mean these dictionary definitions,

.competently1. Capable of doing many things 2. Having varied uses or serving many functions. AND is:competentlyIf your definition of If any of these considerations have to be factored in, then you can comprimise your way down to your iPhone being the more versatile. Size, weight and cost not being factored, a pro-bodied DSLR, with an arsenal of lenses, is the most versatile camera in the world. Then you realize that this entire question is impossible to answer. 2. Adequate for the purpose. 1. Properly or sufficiently qualified.

Compromise is a part and parcel of versatility. And in fact, smart phones exist on that premise, and from portability, to functions (camera, video, phone to challenging laptops).

I didn't pick his lenses. He picked his own, to advertise what he fits in a "small waist" belt. I picked mine, for focal lengths, I would normally carry which generally is about small, fast primes. If you want to take up the challenge, what kind of weight and size are you looking at with lenses to match the FoV I mentioned with a FF body?

Who cares about weight? I thought we were originally talking about image versatility?

-- hide signature --

Any opinions I express are my own and do not represent DPReview

The definition for versatility wasn't specified.

You don't care about weight?

Not within the realm of today's most popular cameras and lenses, no. I'm not going to carry around 100lbs but if I'm looking for versatility I'm going to take something that's truly versatile in terms of the creation of the final image. FF + lots of 2.8 or faster glass meets that criteria better than anything else available.

I didn't pick his lenses. He picked his own, to advertise what he fits in a "small waist" belt. I picked mine, for focal lengths, I would normally carry which generally is about small, fast primes. If you want to take up the challenge, what kind of weight and size are you looking at with lenses to match the FoV I mentioned with a FF body?

Who cares about weight? I thought we were originally talking about image versatility?

Versatility of anything isn't about considering a select piece of the entire makeup. It is something's ability to adapt easily to several different situations.

Exactly, making my original (from the first thread) argument even stronger.

but if I'm looking for versatility I'm going to take something that's truly versatile in terms of the creation of the final image. FF + lots of 2.8 or faster glass meets that criteria better than anything else available.

True.

Versatility is about what gives the best performance in a widest range of shooting scenarios, that's FF.

It can do pretty much anything a comparable DSLR/DSLT can. However, it will be a tall order to reverse that.

No, it can't, depending on what you mean by 'comparable' anyway. It can't do a LOT of things that a FF dSLR can.

No long zooms available.

Non-issue to me. It is extremely rare for me to feel the need for anything past 135mm (200mm equivalent). In some of these cases above, are the few moments I go to 200mm or better.

A non-issue for YOU, but not for a lot of other people. That's just one of the the things it can't do.

Sony lenses for the NEx cannot do what DSLR lenses can in that department. Samsung and m43s have better IQ in general, a lot better and m43s has a much longer focal length. But even these are not where DSLR systems are yet.

Sony NEX can do more than a comparable DSLR can.

Again with this 'comparable' thing. What's your definition of 'comparable'? The dictionary definition of 'comparable' just means 'able to be compared', which means that ALL dSLR's and SLT's are comparable.

To repeat, I can if I were to carry just one camera today, for its versatility, Sony NEX-6 would be my pick. Not any comparable DSLR, not any DSLT. And forget m4/3 and lesser cameras.

But what does what YOU would choose have anything to do with the original question?

I didn't pick his lenses. He picked his own, to advertise what he fits in a "small waist" belt. I picked mine, for focal lengths, I would normally carry which generally is about small, fast primes. If you want to take up the challenge, what kind of weight and size are you looking at with lenses to match the FoV I mentioned with a FF body?

You commented on the weight of his kit and compared it to the weight of yours. To me, that gave the impression that you saw the two kits as somehow comparable.

I commented on this argument:

ljfinger wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

ljfinger wrote:

Ulric wrote:

And the Canon FF primes or zooms will easily fit into the fridge you brought to the picnic.

People that claim there is a meaningful difference in physical size are kidding themselves, in my opinion. I use a small waist pack and carry a full-frame camera with four lenses two teleconverters and a full-sized flash plus accessories like batteries, filters, cards, micro tripods, and even a water bottle, site map and snacks.

The person you responded to is definitely exaggerating, but so are you. How much space and weight do you think a FF camera, with an ultra wide zoom, a wide angle prime (20-30mm), a normal fast prime (50mm) and a short fast telephoto (85mm) cost?

Not much...like I said, I use a small waist pack, and that includes a 70-200/2.8, a 24-105, a 15mm fisheye and a 35/1.4.

He provided his idea, to respond to mine.

Ok, so he didn't respond with exactly what you asked for but instead stated what he carries. A reasonable response but not much good for a direct comparison of versatility, weight, and size. However, the fact that his kit fits in a waist pack (versus say a large backpack) is still relevant to the discussion. You aren't putting your NEX kit in your pocket either and most likely put it in a bag of some sort in lieu of always wearing a jacket with large pockets or some other workaround to avoid a bag.

You have a field of view of 15-75mm full frame equivalent. If I had to match your focal length range, I'd get a 16-35/4 VR and a 24-85/3.5-4.5 VR lens which tip the scales at a combined 2.5 lbs.

You might want to also note that I didn't stop with couple of zooms to cover a FL range. So, let me ask again,

How much space and weight are we talking about, carrying an ultra-wide zoom, a wide angle prime (pick 20-35mm), a normal prime (50mm) and a 75-90mm short telephoto prime? With NEX-6, you're looking at about 2 lb, or the weight of a typical Full Frame body-only.

joejack951 wrote: Ok, so he didn't respond with exactly what you asked for but instead stated what he carries. A reasonable response but not much good for a direct comparison of versatility, weight, and size. However, the fact that his kit fits in a waist pack (versus say a large backpack) is still relevant to the discussion.

As I said then, lugging around 8+ lb of gear, even if held by just a string, isn't my idea of small, light and convenient. I offered to make a direct comparison.

You aren't putting your NEX kit in your pocket either and most likely put it in a bag of some sort in lieu of always wearing a jacket with large pockets or some other workaround to avoid a bag.

But one can put a NEX-6 in a pocket. In fact, if I'm out shooting casually, I might not need a bag at all (that is the kind of gear list I provided). And correct, I'd be wearing cargo shorts/pants.

I didn't pick his lenses. He picked his own, to advertise what he fits in a "small waist" belt. I picked mine, for focal lengths, I would normally carry which generally is about small, fast primes. If you want to take up the challenge, what kind of weight and size are you looking at with lenses to match the FoV I mentioned with a FF body?

Who cares about weight? I thought we were originally talking about image versatility?

Versatility of anything isn't about considering a select piece of the entire makeup. It is something's ability to adapt easily to several different situations.

Exactly, making my original (from the first thread) argument even stronger.

-- hide signature --

Any opinions I express are my own and do not represent DPReview.

Not really. Because your argument was one-dimensional whereas versatility is about being multi-dimensional. And generally speaking, Jack of all trades and master of none is better representative of versatility.

No, that'd be a medium format camera equipped with a handful of high-quality prime lenses, as results of upsampling are never as versatile as capturing a larger, more detailed image to begin with in terms of producing a final image.

It's a tad impractical for some situations (such as street shooting, or photographing a classical concert), but then so are 35mm SLRs and f2.8 zooms (such as in street shooting, or photographing a classical concert; funny that).